Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke's editorial task (was re: more on Downing)

Expand Messages
  • John C. Poirier
    ... Ron, If Luke s notice about attempting an orderly account is meant to emphasize the matter of order, then should we not presume that he disagreed with
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 24, 2003
      Ron Price wrote:

      > In the discussion prompted by Downing, the comparison between Luke and
      > Josephus et. al regarding the difficulty of merging and rearranging
      > sources has attempted to assess "difficulty" in an absolute sense.
      > In practice this is unrealistic. Any given author would weigh the
      > difficulty against the perceived gains before making the decision to
      > tackle a complicated merger/rearrangement. . . .


      If Luke's notice about attempting an "orderly account" is meant to emphasize
      the matter of order, then should we not presume that he disagreed with the
      order of one or more of his sources? Of course it's easier to use Matthew
      as the basis of a new gospel, but why write a new gospel if Matthew got it
      all right (even literarily)?

      It seems to me that you're making things too complicated for Luke.
      Depending on how familiar he was with Mark, it may have been easy for Luke
      to spot Matthew's additions.

      Think about it: if someone gave you a copy of one of the gospels in which
      new material had been added, would you not be able to recognize the new
      material right away (no matter how biblical it sounded), based on your
      familiarity with the correct version of the text? Critics of the Farrer
      hypothesis seem to think that it would have been tedious for Farrer's Luke
      to do what MicrosoftWord's "compare versions" function does, but that only
      shows a lack of historical imagination. If you are thoroughly familiar with
      one of the source texts, it's easy to do the equivalent of the "compare
      versions" function in your head when reading a conflate text. (Of course,
      it's more difficult when you're thoroughly familiar with *both* texts, which
      may be why so many scholars have difficulty imagining the procedure.)
      There's nothing "unrealistic" about it.

      John C. Poirier
      Middletown, Ohio

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.